You Idiots

[General_Disturbance]

Yes I am talking about you...all you who post on here talking about how great the latest games are and all you reviewers who are giving games good reviews while not pointing out why they obviously suck.

COD4: Are you kidding me? 1) You can't even do save games. Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of intellect, console players.
2) Why not just have a long corridor with high walls? Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of console players...who wants a game where you need to use your brain and think about where you're going?
3) Let's just shoot wildly and have enemies that keep spawning out of nowhere until you move to the next checkpoint. I hate console players, they are ruining gaming.

Bioshock: No lead into an interesting story line, just start shooting and gathering resources and not have to think about strategy or conservation at all. Pathetic excuse for a "spiritual successor" to SystemShock. Again they've played to the lowest common denominator, console players, - proven by the control options menu...why make it so obvious. I couldnt even finish the game it was so retarded and predictable an disappointing.

Crysis: Far Cry 2. Thats all I have to say.


You know what we need? A game review site where they're not sell-out hacks for the console gaming industry. Notice how even obviously **** games get good reviews? How Bioshock and COD4 didn't get verbally raped by PC reviewers is beyond me...anyone? COD4 for being a console port when they claimed it was for PC, and Bioshock for the same reason (vitachambers anyone? these are obviously exclusively put in the game FOR console users).
Crysis is definitely designed for PC which is great, but as a sequel to FarCry it is pretty much what you can expect...fun, lots of eye candy, an identical story line, but leaving you thinking of why the first one was better. And much more so for Bioshock and COD4.
Nice xmass presents, but man I fear the road PC gaming is heading down. One day I'll be telling my grandkids of the glory days.

 

[JonnyRock]

General_Disturbance ------>> nuf said



PS: i r b 1 dat dig COD4, i b play it on me PC, dis dat meen i r clever like u?

 

[justinmcg67]

I agree that they need to stop selling it as a PC title but bending to the will of console gamers. BioShock comes to mind on that one. BioShock also happens to be the biggest disappointment of the year for me. Not only was it lackluster in some areas, it did excel in others, but the sheer fact that it has SecurRom on it, makes me purchasing it for a friend or family member just unthinkable.

CoD4 is a great multiplayer game. The Single player campaign was leaps and bounds better than other titles, but it could be improved upon. I play CoD4 strictly for the multiplayer, and I think it's currently the best purchase out there for PC titles aside from World In Conflict.

Crysis, there's nothing that needs to be said about this game. Everyone knows about it and everyone generally conforms to the same thoughts on it.

 

[pookie]

U CANT BE FRIGGIN SERIOUS. Bioshock was simply amazing. Sure the verichambers made it a lil easy but ur gonna crucify the game for that???? WOW ok watever. Crysis is a friggin visual masterpiece. Not as deep as some would like it to be but then that was never the point was it. COD4. OK UR JUST AN ASSTARD NOW. AMAZING. The portion where ur in the gillie suits sniping is one of the most tense moments that i have ever experienced in a pc game. The op has issues that can only be resolved by murder suicide. Fukk his dreams and lets move on.

 

[General_Disturbance]

U CANT BE FRIGGIN SERIOUS. Bioshock was simply amazing. Sure the verichambers made it a lil easy but ur gonna crucify the game for that???? WOW ok watever. Crysis is a friggin visual masterpiece. Not as deep as some would like it to be but then that was never the point was it. COD4. OK UR JUST AN ASSTARD NOW. AMAZING. The portion where ur in the gillie suits sniping is one of the most tense moments that i have ever experienced in a pc game. The op has issues that can only be resolved by murder suicide. Fukk his dreams and lets move on.

Wow. You obviously haven't played very many PC games then, have you.
That scene in COD4 lasted all of what, 30 seconds? You prove the point of playing to the lowest common denominator...teenage boys with 30 second attention spans.
You kids are into murder suicide these days aren't you...lets just hope your junior high doesn't ever have to deal with you.

 

[djcoolmasterx]

To me COD4 wasn't all that immersive I should have played it before Crysis because all the way through I kept on trying to explore but ended up bumping into the invisable walls.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

I kinda hear where you're coming from and I don't particularly disagree with you... but I wonder what game would actually make you happy. Could you name a few?

I also agree that raters (people rating games if thats a word) are way too generous but at the same time there is a reason for it. Furthermore, people rating RPGs are people that like to play RPGs and same applies for other genre such as FPS, which might explain the enthusiastic ratings most website end up with. On the other hand, it wouldn't be fair for the publishers and/or marketing departments for a PC Shooter enthousiast to be rating a RPG game and so on.

One thing that makes or breaks on reviewers is the advantage of PC gaming and what it has to offer. Giving the same score for the same game on PC and Console doesn't make sense to me. For instance, PC games have a much greater capability of internet access and online gameplay, the controls are much different, etc. When rating "PC Games" it should be rated given the platforms capabilities which is not considered by all reviewers. Consoles may or may not be limited by this. But I don't really get your bad console gameplay type.

Personally, I would give the following games the following scores:

Crysis: 8.0/10 Graphics + Great Editor + Replay value - performance = Great
BioShock: 6.5/10 Plasma + Patch - repetitive gameplay = less than average value
Jericho: 6.5/10 Originality! + Team based action - lineare = Average Value
COD4: 7.5/10 Solid multiplayer & singleplayer campaign = Good

Now, these are all shooters (my type of games) so I wouldn't include reviews for other games I've played such as Oblivion or Hellgate London, etc. as it woulnd't be fair for the publishers. Lets say I was to give the Orange Box a 10/10 because I found the value of 3+ games for the price of one was excellent, then many people would think I am biased and so on.

Conclusion: Most people look at reviews because they usually agree with the scores given with most websites. You should only read about the bad stuff as a heads up and leave the good stuff as part of your own opinion. In your case, reviews aren't very useful because you seem to have a non-biased, non-hyped, strong personal opinion. May I recommend forums? There you will find the baddest of the bad reviews and get all the heads up possible before going to the store with that hype attitude. Just don't listen to fanboys because they will throw you off bigger than marketing departments themselves.

 

[Trialsking]

Sounds like someone has gotten older, is married , their adjustable mortgage has "adjusted", and is ready to retire from gaming.
Sucks to be you.
I found those same games pretty fun. I may not be a teenager, but I teach them, so their attention spans must be contageous.

 

[General_Disturbance]

hehe.
No, I'm a 20-something gamer with a new career and lots of money to blow on top-end systems and games...it's great to be me!
Fun games...sure. But satisfying? No. (well, Crysis was mildly). The last 10 years have seen some truly epic games, and with all the hype pushed around for some of these titles one can naively expect (hope) them to continue rasing the bar.

Good GFX alone does not raise the bar, I think many people don't realize this. Playing the same games with better gfx is not playing BETTER games. If anything, game immersion and depth has gotten worse with better gfx, perhaps because it takes so much more time to develop the environments rather than developing a good story line. Which brings me to another point: Why does it seem that the only good games lately are games that are created alongside new game engines? HL2, DOOM3, FarCry, Crysis, the list goes on. Why doesn't some company actually go and USE one of these already-made engines and create a masterpeice of a story line? The engines are there - you don't have to waste time developing ALL that code - put ALL your effort into creating an amazing game with an immersing story line.

One problem is that noone has thought of something new to shoot at and a new reason for shooting at it. We have the standards: Nazi's, Terrorists, Zombies, Aliens. For the FPS games I love, you need something to shoot at. If you can think of something NEW to shoot at you should automatically have a new reason for shooting at it, and hence should be able to come up with an original story line and create something immersive and original and great. All within reason of course....shooting kittens isn't going to sell. If you can't think of something new, think of a new reason to be shooting at them. The reason CAN BE simply that they're zombies, and hence they simply NEED shooting...but WHY are there zombies? You could do a lot with the "why" part and make an intriguing game, and this is the approach most game studios take. But the "why" starting to get too repetitive and too re-hashed.

So come people, let your creative juices out and think of new things to shoot at, for new/old reasons, or at least the same things to shoot at, for new reasons.

 

[justinmcg67]

I absolutely agree with the repetition aspect of shooters. It's the same thing rehashed and sold as a new title over and over. The only real thing Crysis had in comparison to it's predecessor, Far Cry, was better graphics. This doesn't justify a better game though.

As for the "why" portion you speak of, two games notably come to mind: Unreal Tournament series and Counter-Strike. They don't need a "why", it's STRICTLY multiplayer. You're shooting each other for scores and wins, nothing more nothing less.

However, every other game I can think of really fails at the "why" aspect of things. Half-Life kind of explained itself but it could have been more in-depth, but a great game nonetheless. And to touch on the graphics thing, this is true. The key to success for games these days is NOT graphics, it's scaling. Games coming out lately require far to much for your everyday PC to run, and boom, that cuts your potential buyers by ten fold.

Looking at MMORPGs vs. FPS titles is very different. MMORPGs scale to PC requirements and PC users componets VERY well, this explains how, as an example and nothing more, World of Warcraft can have some 10,000,000 users. Now compare that to, say, Counter-Strike, than compare that to the users playing Crysis. The amount of users would go from something like 10,000,000 to about 500,000, or nearly 1/20th the amount of players. Compare that total to the 50,000 or so players of Crysis and now you're at roughly 1/10th the users. Why is this? Primarily because Crysis requires SUFFICIENTLY more from a PC just to play the game, whereas Counter-Strike requires a lot less, and World of Warcraft requires even less than that.

FPS genre games need scalability and ingenuity to get them out of this "slump" if you will. I know I would by a lot more titles if my other PC could play them, but, well, due to demands of the graphics, I can't; and that's a loss in sales for those companies.

 

[spuddyt]

i'm still looking forward to portal 2 (you can't say thats not innovative)
and you can't complain at the multiplayer in COD4 - its not meant to be wide open and expansive (i admit, i haven't even tried the singleplayer yet...)

 

[MrIcky]

A top tier console game sells 3x as many copies as a top tier pc only game. That's why the game makers bend to console gamers. There simply aren't enough PC gamers to make it worthwhile. Crysis selling <100k copies by Christmas in the U.S. basically tells you everything you need to know.

"COD4: Are you kidding me? 1) You can't even do save games. Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of intellect, console players.
2) Why not just have a long corridor with high walls? Again, playing to the lowest common denominator of console players...who wants a game where you need to use your brain and think about where you're going?
3) Let's just shoot wildly and have enemies that keep spawning out of nowhere until you move to the next checkpoint. I hate console players, they are ruining gaming."

Where and when have action oriented fps's been any different? Oh wait, they haven't- ever. I'm 40 so I'm already telling my kids about the 'glory days'. Open environment games like Oblivion make ok rpg's but they certainly don't make good fps's. If you want to keep the tension/action high (fps's hallmark) you HAVE to have triggered events. This means that you HAVE to be put in a "corridor with high walls". Otherwise you will have to just fill the world with MORE zombies/nazi's/aliens etc.

OK, so then you want to talk about enemies. You can fill in the blank on who your enemy is, it's all been done. So, instead of telling us we need a new enemy, name a different enemy for a game company to creatively use?

So then you bring up 'why they're zombies'. OK those reasons are running pretty thin too. You basically have a)Lovecraft type, b)evil corporation, c)mind control/alien interaction. Anything else you can think of is a variation of one of those 3. The trick is to provide better/darker/scarier environments so you can survival-horror your way out. Bioshock and FEAR did ok with this- Bioshock just has too much of it.

I give Bioshock credit just for putting in a storyline. I personally would have removed about 5 levels and spent that programming time on AI. Compared to most FPS drivel- that really is a good attempt to try to deliver something different. Yup, it's System Shock 3, which was Alone in the Dark in space.

I give COD4 credit because they put in some of the best game pacing I've seen in a while combined with some very well thought out triggered events. The enemy forces you to move forward. They also kept the single player experience tight- I hate it when dev's try to make a 6 hour campaign take 12 just because they think they should. You can always play America's Army and patrol a fence for 2 hours if you want more realism.

My experience is that this last year actually had a relatively good crop of games. I think it's kind of funny that the general consensus on a few games is that they're good. You don't like them so you think everyone ELSE must be an idiot. I have a feeling you just got your ass handed to you.

 

[SEALBoy]

@General_Disturbance: People can have opinion's, you know. You may not like the current games but that doesn't mean they suck or that we should force ourselves to think they suck.

I'm a PC gamer, and I really mean that, my total time logged on a console FPS is about 5 minutes. I think CoD4 was an excellent game, as was Crysis. Haven't played Bioshock yet. Most reviewers and other gamers also like these games. Should a neutral observer listen to the masses or just you?

 

[Trunkz_Jr]

(quote: General_Disturbance)
"hehe.
No, I'm a 20-something gamer with a new career and lots of money to blow on top-end systems and games...it's great to be me!"

To me, your profile says your about 30, you lie and right now nobody should care about your opinion but just for the hell of it, let's keep talkin about this.

If you are 30, then you should have many years worth of gaming experience, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right, it's just an opinion. If 1 review says Crysis sucks, and 10 say its great, who do you think people are going to side with?

When I played the CoD4 demo for the PC, i hated it. I hate feeling that I MUST go down this path and go through this door, I like more freedom. All the people in my clan said the multiplayer was awesome, so I picked up 2 copies for both my computers and I haven't looked back since nor will i even touch the singleplayer (Multiplayer is very fun). This is something personally I FEEL, does that mean singleplayer sucks? Of course not, but to me, I'm not much of a single player guy.

I feel you have every right to say that YOU THINK that these games suck, but I don't think you should have any right to call people idiots in your topic name/rants, this topic is no longer a discussion between the good and bads about the games, it's people trying to defend the truth of these games which they've made for themselves, and to me, have gotten very high ratings.

 

[stemnin]

sounds like he sucks, he got burned, wasted money on a top end "dell", bought all those games without playing a demo and is pissed that it's taking duke nukem forever forever to finish, but are you expecting it to be leaps beyong duke nukem 3d? I don't, it will be the REAL duke nukem 3d, sprite-less, but not a holy grail of gaming.

IMO the best games came out 10, 20 years ago, the first rts, the first fps, the first puzzle game, after that it's mostly variations on the same themes.

 

[crom]

Who plays COD4's single player game anyway? Multiplayer is a lot of fun.

 

[General_Disturbance]

(quote: General_Disturbance)
"hehe.
No, I'm a 20-something gamer with a new career and lots of money to blow on top-end systems and games...it's great to be me!"

To me, your profile says your about 30, you lie and right now nobody should care about your opinion but just for the hell of it, let's keep talkin about this.

If you are 30, then you should have many years worth of gaming experience, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right, it's just an opinion. If 1 review says Crysis sucks, and 10 say its great, who do you think people are going to side with?

When I played the CoD4 demo for the PC, i hated it. I hate feeling that I MUST go down this path and go through this door, I like more freedom. All the people in my clan said the multiplayer was awesome, so I picked up 2 copies for both my computers and I haven't looked back since nor will i even touch the singleplayer (Multiplayer is very fun). This is something personally I FEEL, does that mean singleplayer sucks? Of course not, but to me, I'm not much of a single player guy.

I feel you have every right to say that YOU THINK that these games suck, but I don't think you should have any right to call people idiots in your topic name/rants, this topic is no longer a discussion between the good and bads about the games, it's people trying to defend the truth of these games which they've made for themselves, and to me, have gotten very high ratings.

tsk tsk...I just turned 30, I still feel 20's lol! Oh no now I'm a lier! lol
The people I called idiots are the people who blindly accept these games as being the best thing since sliced bread, simply because the hype engine TELLS them this is so. I read tons and tons of reviews of these games and never did they criticize the obvious lacks in them. Fun games, but clearly playing down a few notches.

 

[General_Disturbance]

sounds like he sucks, he got burned, wasted money on a top end "dell", bought all those games without playing a demo and is pissed that it's taking duke nukem forever forever to finish, but are you expecting it to be leaps beyong duke nukem 3d? I don't, it will be the REAL duke nukem 3d, sprite-less, but not a holy grail of gaming.

IMO the best games came out 10, 20 years ago, the first rts, the first fps, the first puzzle game, after that it's mostly variations on the same themes.

Actually, I have a custom built system I did myself: Q6600 @ 3.4 GHz, 2GB 4-4-4-12 OCZ HPC, HD3870 @ 820MHz Core, 2400MHz Mem, Sensheiser HD595 Headphones, ASUS Maximus Formula. BOOM you're burned! This system kills you! SuperPi 1M = 13.7 Sec!

I played all the demos too, and as I played them I felt the exact same way I do now. But I still got the full games because 1)there are no other big title games...these are them! 2) some were xmas presents, both to me and bought by me for my brothers 3) I was hoping the full game would be better.
I must admit Crysis didn't disappoint..but it is still the most unoriginal game I've played in a long time.

But you have a point...maybe it's just over-familiarity with the themes that dissapoints.

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

I see nothing wrong with COD4 single player... lots of weapons, lots of original missions. No it's not a hallway game. There are lots places to flank your enemies, enviroments are very well done. Bioshock enviroments was kind of a dissapointing it's just a hallway but story was amazing so was the gameplay. Crysis obviously was not dragged down by any console concerns. It was a good game in single player. One big-ass island for you to destroy with realistic enviroments don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[spuddyt]

I found Bioshock great..... once, now though, its not worth playing through a second time, I liked the storyline (i didn't care much for the gameplay, i ended up with super wrench wielding skills :lol and it drove me all the way through, but now.... meanwhile the COD4 multiplayer is lasting me quite a lot longer... and im on a third playthrough of crysis, (this time on normal difficulty using only pistols....) it just manages not to get old.... I'm sorry, but I don't really see where you are coming from general disturbance, the only thing that makes a game "special" to you is when you play it with friends on lan for hours on end, with that kind of friendly, slightly unhealthy atomsphere... which is one reason i like company of heroes a lot (and that i can play halo custom edition and enjoy it to reviews...)
(sorry for rambling, it was rather a stream of consciousness)

 

[Pist]

Lots of people stayed away from Crysis cause they feared their systems wouldn't be able to handle it, plus it has EA name all over the box.

CoD4, was ok for me, this game has kept me playing longer then any of the other versions of it.
It does have its problems and is lacking stuff other games have, the only down fall of it is, its way too easy to rank up, once you do the only thing you have left to do is get the different camo for the guns and golden version.
The maps are way too small and guns need some tweaking done.

The reason Console have better sales is cause no one has to worry about if their system can run it.
Most PC users don't have top of the line systems that can run newer games, lots of people are still using 6 series video cards so theres no way they will buy Crysis or any of these newer games.
Thats why so many people play older games like CS 1.6 and Wolf-ET, those games don't require high end computer to play them.

The market is flooded with games that blow, games like Soldier of Fortune: Payback, activision-value just wanted to make quick buck by porting it to PC, the game one of the biggest flops to this day.
Has nothing in common with Soldier of Fortune 2, PayBack was made by some budget developer not Raven.

It does feel like game developers are only worrying about how good the games look these days and not how well the actual game play is, you can wrap a turd in pretty paper but its still a turd no matter how you look at it.

 

[spuddyt]

not in the eyes of some dogs.... then its a sweetie

 

[snyderm]

I must say that I mostly agree with General Disturbance. There is so much of PC gaming of the past that made it *so* superior that did not quite make it into the modern age.

Do you notice how many combat simulators are out nowadays? Like none. I have a souped-up pc to play games instead of a console because I want more sophisticated games than console gamers have, but sadly all of the consoles are merging into the same market as the PC gamers.

There are a few exceptions, though

Civ4
X3 Reunion (personifies why I have a PC. No A.D.D teenager would play this game)
Medievel 2 (again, too much depth for most people)

Case in point, I recently bought Fantasy Wars. It is a really rough, behind the times hex war game. If some of the more gifted game develpers made a game with exactly the same contents, only polished and deeper, man it would rule. But noone wants to make a game where you have to think.

Bioshock (7.0 Is this supposed to be a serious game?)
Call of Duty 4 (7.5 Too scripted and artificial)
Crysis (8.5 Fun, looks good, but degenerates into a console game later)


I don't want to complain too much, because the deep stradegy games for the PC are not dead yet. But it is true that console games are infecting the PC market, and thats a bad thing.

 

[rgeist554]

tsk tsk...I just turned 30, I still feel 20's lol! Oh no now I'm a lier! lol
The people I called idiots are the people who blindly accept these games as being the best thing since sliced bread, simply because the hype engine TELLS them this is so. I read tons and tons of reviews of these games and never did they criticize the obvious lacks in them. Fun games, but clearly playing down a few notches.

I don't think anyone accepts them as the "best thing since sliced bread", it's simply the best thing out at the time. In fact, I haven't seen many people say "ZOMG! COD4 is liek the bestest game evar!". They just believe it should be game of the year. If you can list a better game of the year, instead of bashing every single game that has been released, I'm all ears.

Yes, the game is short (single player at least), but it provides an extreme dynamic, entertaining game play. Also, the controls provided in the CoD franchise are the some best, all-encompassing controls as an infantry based game.

As for coming up with something unique... I'd like to see that as well, but the truth be told... there just isn't much that hasn't already been done. All that's really left for designers to do is combine those ideas, provide their own view (add their own touch), and make it better than it's predecessors.

Also, if you've just turned 30, then you should be mature enough not to call a vast majority of people idiots to prove your point. Insults never help your arguments, they merely make people ignore your opinions and focus on the fact that you're talking down to them. In the future if you'd like to prove a point, try coming in from a point of neutrality. You had plenty of good points to back your opinions / statements up, but I feel that they would have come across better had you not posted with "guns ablazing".

Anyhoo, that's my $0.02...

 

[uk_gangsta]

Actually, I have a custom built system I did myself: Q6600 @ 3.4 GHz, 2GB 4-4-4-12 OCZ HPC, HD3870 @ 820MHz Core, 2400MHz Mem, Sensheiser HD595 Headphones, ASUS Maximus Formula. BOOM you're burned! This system kills you! SuperPi 1M = 13.7 Sec!

I played all the demos too, and as I played them I felt the exact same way I do now. But I still got the full games because 1)there are no other big title games...these are them! 2) some were xmas presents, both to me and bought by me for my brothers 3) I was hoping the full game would be better.
I must admit Crysis didn't disappoint..but it is still the most unoriginal game I've played in a long time.

But you have a point...maybe it's just over-familiarity with the themes that dissapoints.

.................So basically what you are saying is you have a pentium 3???? LOL............